2 Corinthians vi. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.—As deceivers, and yet true; as unknown, and yet well known: as dying, and behold, we live; as chastened, and not killed; as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all things. O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.
A
LETTER, &c.
Boston, January 23, 1745.
Reverend and honoured Gentlemen,
WHEN the great Apostle of the Gentiles was accused before the Governor of Cæsarea, Acts xxiv. by Tertullus, (employed for that purpose by Ananias the high-priest, and the Elders) as “a pestilent fellow, a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes,” he thought it his duty (being beckoned to by the Governor) to answer for himself; and in his answer proved, that he was in no wise guilty of the things that were laid to his charge. You, Gentlemen, seem to view me in the same light, wherein Tertullus, Ananias, and the Elders viewed Paul; and accordingly have thought proper to publish a testimony against me and my conduct, wherein you have undertaken to prove, page 4, that “I am an enthusiast, a censorious, uncharitable person, and a deluder of the people.” Will you give me leave, since I think the great Governor of the church beckons to me by his providence so to do, without minutely criticising upon the diction and method of your testimony, to answer for myself, and in the spirit of meekness examine the proofs you bring to make good your charges against me.
“By an enthusiast (you say, page 4.) we mean one that acts, either according to dreams, or some sudden impulses and impressions upon his mind, which he fondly imagines to be from the Spirit of God, persuading and inclining him thereby to such and such actions, though he hath no proof that such persuasions or impressions are from the Holy Spirit.” This definition of an enthusiast, (whether exactly right or not) you are pleased to apply to me; and accordingly at the bottom of the aforementioned page you assert, that I am “a man that conducts himself according to his dreams, or some ridiculous and unaccountable impulses and impressions on his mind,” and “that this is Mr. Whitefield’s manner, is evident both by his life, his Journals, and his sermons.” “From these pieces (you add, page 5.) it is very evident that he used to govern himself by his dreams: one instance of this we have in his life, page 12. ‘Near this time I dreamed that I was to see God on mount Sinai. This made a great impression upon me.’ Another like instance we have, pages 39, 40. ‘I prayed that God would open a door to visit the prisoners. Quickly after, I dreamed that one of the prisoners came to be instructed by me: the dream was impressed much upon my heart: in the morning I went to the door of the ♦goal.’ Once more, a like instance we have, page 43. ‘I dreamed I was talking with the Bishop; and that he gave me some gold, which chinked in my hands:’ and, page 44. ‘The guineas chinking in my hand, put me in mind of my dream.’” Now, say you in the next paragraph, “if we consider these instances, we must suppose him conducting himself by dreams.” But, Gentlemen, how will these premises admit of such a conclusion? In writing a brief account of God’s dealings with me from my infancy to the time of my ordination, I have mentioned three particular dreams; but how does this prove, that I conduct myself (I suppose you mean in the general course of my life) by dreams; or that this denominates me an enthusiast, who (according to your definition) acts according to dreams or “some sudden impulses and impressions upon his mind, which he fondly imagines to be from the Spirit of God, persuading and inclining him thereby to such and such actions, though he hath no proof that such persuasions or impressions (I humbly apprehend to make up the sense there should be added, or dreams) are from the Holy Spirit?” May not a person, in a few instances of his life, have some remarkable dreams, which may be explained by subsequent providences, without being an enthusiast, or justly termed one that acts or conducts and governs himself according to dreams?
Besides, ought you not to have quoted the passages as they stand in my life, and then every one must see, I was far from acting according to dreams, even in these instances. The first I mentioned because it was a means under God of awakening me in some degree, as I suppose hath been the case of many; and is this a conducting of myself by a dream? As for the second, the case was thus: as I used to visit the prisoners at Oxford, so upon my coming to Gloucester, my compassion for the poor prisoners there, and the hopes I had of being serviceable to them, inclined me to visit them also; for which reason I prayed most earnestly, that God would open a door for me to visit them; quickly after I dreamed that one of the prisoners came to be instructed by me: the dream was impressed much upon my heart. In the morning I went to the door of the goal. This dream was no further a reason of my going thither, than as it was a means of exciting me to pursue the reasonable inclination I had before. And subsequent providences made me afterwards judge, that God directed the dream for that purpose. As to the third, I was so far from being conducted by it, that as I have said in the account I gave of it, which, Gentlemen, you would have done well to have observed, I always checked the impression it made upon me. These are the only dreams I think that are mentioned in any of my writings; and all these are in the account of my life: though you are pleased to say, page 5, “From these pieces [namely my Life, Journals, and Sermons] it is very evident that he used to govern himself by dreams.”
“As plain it is, (you add, page ibid.) that he usually governed himself by some sudden impulses and impressions on his mind, and we have one instance that may satisfy us, that his first setting out upon his itinerant business, was from an enthusiastic turn. Journal from London to Gibraltar, page 3, he says, ‘He will not mention the reasons that persuaded him it was the divine will that he should go abroad, because they might not be deemed good reasons by another;’ but saith, ‘He was as much bent as ever to go, though strongly solicited to the contrary, having asked direction from heaven about it for a year and half.’” And does not this prove, Gentlemen, that I acted cautiously in the affair, and took time to consider of the step I was about to take? and consequently was not governed herein by some sudden impulse or impression on my mind, and without consulting Providence, continuing instant in prayer, and conferring with friends on the occasion, for the space of a year and half, as you well observe? And what if I did not mention “the reasons that persuaded me it was the divine will that I should go abroad, because they might not be deemed good reasons by another.” Does it therefore follow, that I was governed in the affair by impulses and impressions, or that I had no good reasons to give? Besides, Gentlemen, how does it appear that this passage refers to my first setting out upon my itinerant business? I think I mention only going abroad to Georgia, whither I was then bound, and where I intended to settle. At this time I had no thought of being an itinerant. It did not appear to be my duty to set out upon that business, for a considerable time afterwards. How I was induced at length to set out upon it, I may give an account of in a future tract; but till that be published, how can any one fairly determine “whether my first setting out upon this itinerant business, was from an enthusiastical turn or not.”
“Other instances (you say, page ibid.) there are, wherein he shews it to be his custom to attribute any common turn of his mind to a motion of the Holy Spirit upon him, without any more reason than any man may, any recollections of his memory, or sudden suggestion of his own understanding. Such a one you have, Journal from Gibraltar to Savannah, page 3. ‘I went to bed with unusual thoughts and convictions that God would do some great things at Gibraltar.’” But, Gentlemen, if I say, I went to bed with unusual thoughts and convictions, how is this an instance of “my attributing any common turn of my mind to a motion of the Holy Spirit.” You endeavour to prove it further, page 6. by a second passage taken out of another Journal from Savannah to England, page 22. where it is said, “That the lesson before he left Savannah, being St. Paul’s shipwreck: and that before his leaving Charles-Town, being the first of Jonah, made such a deep impression upon him, that he wrote to his friend to acquaint him, he was apprehensive he should have a dangerous voyage; and it happening to be bad weather accordingly, he says, ‘God hath now shewed me wherefore he gave those previous notices.’” But, Gentlemen, how is this an instance of my attributing any common turn of my mind to a motion of the Holy Spirit? Was it a common turn of my mind to have Paul’s shipwreck, and the first of Jonah powerfully pressed upon me? I do not know that it was. But you are pleased to draw this further inference from the quotation, page ibid., “So that every scripture that came to his view, was received as the bath-kol of the Jews, and he plainly shews himself as much directed by this way of finding out the will of God as he calls it, as the old heathens were by their sortes Homericæ Virgilianæ.” But how does this prove, that every scripture that came to my view, was received as the bath-kol, &c. I think I mentioned only the first of Jonah, and the xxviith of Acts: but you say of this, (my receiving every scripture that came to my view as the bath-kol) we have a very full instance, same Journal, page 38, where you “have a particular application of the words which appeared upon the Doctor’s first opening the Common Prayer, ‘The Lord hath visited and redeemed his people’.” But how is this a very full instance, when these words did not appear to my view at all, but to the Doctor’s? It was he that was reading, not I; only as you are pleased to express yourselves, “I wisely observed that so it was, for about eight o’clock the men saw land.” Was there any thing unwise in such an observation? Or was there any thing enthusiastical in saying, that God had visited and redeemed his people, when after we had been pinched with hunger, and almost starved, he was pleased to give us a sight of land?
You proceed, page 6, to lay something more to my charge: “Sometimes he speaks as if he had communications directly from the Spirit of God.” And is it a crime for a believer, and a minister of Jesus, to speak of his having communications directly from the Spirit of God? I thought that was no new thing to the ministers and people in New-England, especially since such a remarkable revival of religion has been vouchsafed unto them. How are believers sealed; or how is the divine life begun and carried on, if there be no such thing as having divine communications directly from the Spirit of God?
Again, (page ibid.) you bring a fresh accusation against me. “Sometimes, and indeed very frequently, he (in a most enthusiastic manner) applies even the historical parts of scripture particularly to himself, and his own affairs; and this manner he endeavours particularly to vindicate, Sermon on Searching the Scriptures, page 246. of his Sermons: ‘It is this application of the historical parts of scripture, when we are reading, that must render them profitable to us;’ and appeals to the experience of the christian, that if he hath so consulted the word of God, he has not been plainly directed how to act, as though he had consulted the Urim and the Thummim. For in this plain and full manner he says, page 38. of his life; ‘The Holy Spirit hath from time to time let him into the knowledge of divine things, and hath directed him in the minutest circumstances.’ And, no doubt, hence it is, that he says, forementioned sermon, page 247, ‘That God, at all times, circumstances, and places, though never so minute, never so particular, will, if we diligently seek the assistance of his Holy Spirit, apply general things to our hearts.’ Which, though it may be true in some measure as to the doctrinal and preceptive parts of scripture, yet it is evidently enthusiastic to say so as to the historical parts of it.” But, however the saying so may appear evidently enthusiastical to you, Gentlemen, after maturely weighing the case, it does not appear in that light to me: for does not the Apostle tell Timothy, 2 Timothy iii. 16, 17. “That all scripture (therein, undoubtedly, including the historical as well as doctrinal and preceptive parts) is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction and instruction in righteousness, to make the man of God perfect, thoroughly furnished to every good work.” And does not the same Apostle, speaking of scripture histories, say, 1 Corinthians x. 11. “Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples, and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.” And if it be evidently enthusiastical thus to apply the historical parts of scripture to our own cases in private, is it not equally enthusiastical to preach upon and apply the historical parts of scripture to particular cases or persons in public? And further, if it is evidently enthusiastical to apply the historical parts of scripture to ourselves and to our affairs, then supposing such words as these, “Go in peace, Be whole of thy plague, Son be of good chear;” or that historical passage in John vii. 37. should be applied to a particular soul in deep distress, (as no doubt they have often been) must not that soul reject them entirely for delusions? And if so, how many that are real believers, must be brought into unspeakable bondage?
Page 8, you go on thus: “To mention but one instance more, though we are not of such letter-learned as deny, that there is such an union of believers to Christ, whereby they are one in him, as the Father and he are one, as the Evangelist speaks, or rather the Spirit of God by him; yet so letter-learned we are, as to say, that the passage in Mr. W——d’s sermon of the indwelling of the Spirit, page 311. contains the true spirit of enthusiasm, where he says, ‘To talk of any having the Spirit of God without feeling of it, is really to deny the thing.’ Upon which we say, that the believer may have a satisfaction, that he hath the assistance of the Spirit of God with him in so continual and regular a manner, that he may be said to dwell in him, and yet have no feeling of it.” But, Gentlemen, is not this in effect to deny the indwelling of the Spirit? For how is it possible that the believer can have a satisfaction, that he hath the assistance of the Spirit of God with him in so continued and regular a manner, that he may be said to dwell in him, and yet the believer have no feeling of it? For my part I cannot comprehend it. I could as soon believe the doctrine of transubstantiation, and therefore cannot retract what you are pleased to say contains the true spirit of enthusiasm, “To talk of any having the Spirit of God without feeling it, is really to deny the thing.” The reason you give why the Spirit of God may dwell in a believer, and yet the believer himself have no feeling of it; in my apprehension carries no proof and conviction with it at all. I think you reason thus, page ib. “The metaphor is much too gross to express (however full) this satisfaction of the mind, and has led some to take the expression literally, and hath (we fear) given great satisfaction to many an enthusiast among us since the year 1740, from the swelling of their breasts and stomachs in their religious agitations, which they have thought to be feeling the Spirit, in its operations on them.” Who these enthusiasts, and what these religious agitations are which you are pleased to mention, I cannot tell: neither do I know by whom this metaphor of feeling the Spirit, has been misunderstood, or taken in too gross a sense. But such a way of speaking and writing is very common amongst the most eminent divines, as well as in the articles of the Church of England. In her 17th article she speaks thus: “As the godly consideration of predestination and our election in Christ is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, &c.” Mr. Guthrie, in his Trial of a saving Interest in Christ, page 109. and which used to be Dr. Owen’s Vade mecum, hath this remarkable paragraph: “I speak with the experience of many saints, and I hope according to scripture, if I say there is a communication of the Spirit of God which is let out to some of his people sometimes, that is somewhat beside, if not beyond, that witnessing of a sonship spoken of before. It is a glorious manifestation of God unto the soul, shedding abroad God’s love in the heart. It is a thing better felt than spoken of: it is no audible voice, but it is a flash of glory filling the soul with God, as he is life, light, love, and liberty, countervailing that audible voice, ‘O man greatly beloved,’ Daniel x. 19. putting a man in a transport with this on his heart, ‘It is good to be here,’ as Matthew xvii. 5. It is that which went out from Christ to Mary, when he but mentioned her name, John xx. 16. ‘Jesus saith unto her, Mary: she turneth herself and saith unto him, Rabboni, which is to say, Master.’ He had spoken some words to her before, and she understood not that it was he; but when he uttereth this one word, Mary, there was some admirable divine conveyance and manifestation made out unto her heart, by which she was so satisfyingly filled, that there was no place for arguing and disputing whether or no that was Christ, and if she had any interest in him. That manifestation made faith to itself; and did purchase credit and trust to itself, and was equivalent with, ‘Thus saith the Lord.’ This is such a glance of glory, that it may in the highest sense be called the earnest, or first fruits of the inheritance, Ephesians i. 14. for it is a felt arm-full of the holy God.” Worthy Mr. Baxter, in his Gildas ♦Salvianus, page 40. speaking of the danger of ministers preaching an unknown and unfelt Christ, writes thus: “O Sirs, all your preaching and persuading of others, will be but dreaming and trifling hypocrisy, till the work be thoroughly done upon yourselves. How can you set yourselves day and night to a work, that your carnal hearts are averse from? How can you call out with serious fervour upon poor sinners, with importunate solicitations, to take heed of sin, and to set themselves to a holy life, that never felt yourselves the evil of sin, or the worth of holiness? I tell you, these things are never well known till they are felt, nor well felt till possessed: and he that feeleth them not himself, is not so like to speak feelingly to others, nor to help others to the feeling of them.” Thus wrote Mr. Guthrie and Mr. Baxter: and even the Reverend President himself, in his sermon before the convention, May 28, 1741, page 34. hath these words; “Not but that the saints may feel this very sensibly, and it is a joy unspeakable and full of glory.”
But if such a way of writing displeases you now, and you are of the opinion, “That a believer may have a satisfaction, that he hath the assistance of the Spirit of God with him, in so continual and regular a manner, that he may be said to dwell in him, and yet have no feeling of it,” I cannot wonder, Gentlemen, that my writings are offensive; because, as you observe at the end of this paragraph page 8, my compositions are, and I hope always will be, full of these things.
You close your proofs of my being an enthusiast, with these words, “The whole tends to persuade the world (and it has done so with respect to many) that Mr. W. hath as familiar a converse and communion with God, as any of the Prophets and Apostles, and such, as we all acknowledge to have been under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.” What tendency my writings may have to make people think so highly of me, I cannot determine: but this I affirm, that I would not have undertaken to preach the gospel for ten thousand worlds, had I not been fully persuaded that I had a degree of that Spirit, and was admitted to a degree of that holy and familiar converse and communion with God, which the Prophets and Apostles were favoured with, in common with all believers. And if this had not been the case, should I not, Gentlemen, have lied to God as well as unto man, when I declared at my ordination, that “I was inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost,” who, I believe, according to Christ’s promise, will be with every faithful minister (and so as to be felt too) even to the end of the world.
“As a natural consequence of the heat of enthusiasm, by which (you are pleased to say) he was so evidently acted;” in a following paragraph, page 8. you say, “In the next place, we look upon Mr. Whitefield as an uncharitable, censorious, and slanderous man;” habitually such, for that is the idea your words seem to convey. But, Gentlemen, does it follow that Peter could properly be stiled a cursing, swearing man, because with oaths and curses he denied his Lord? Or could David, that man after God’s own heart, be properly stiled a murdering adulterous man, because he committed adultery with Bathsheba and murdered her husband Uriah? Or, can a believer be stiled properly an hypocrite, because he has yet got a great deal of hypocrisy remaining in his heart? I suppose, by no means. No more, according to my apprehensions, can any man be justly called an uncharitable, censorious, and slanderous man, if he be not habitually so; supposing it should be proved either from his writings or conduct, that he may have been somewhat rash or uncharitable in his judgment passed upon some particular persons or things.
But how, Gentlemen, do you prove this charge, That I am an uncharitable, slanderous man? Why, page 9. “From his monstrous reflections upon the great and good Archbishop Tillotson, (as Dr. Increase Mather stiles him) comparing his sermons to the conjuring books which the Apostle persuaded the people to destroy.” But this, I humbly apprehend, does not prove that I cast reflections, which you call monstrous, upon Archbishop Tillotson as to his personal character, but only his books, which Dr. Increase Mather himself, as I have been informed by the Reverend Mr. Gee, who was brought up under his ministry, and directed by him in his studies, constantly warned the students against. And by the way, I cannot but observe, that this holy venerable man of God, Dr. Increase Mather, if we may credit the writer of his life, dealt as much in impressions and inward feelings, as the person against whom you are pleased to publish this testimony. And though he might call the Archbishop a great and good man for his eminency in station, and great generosity and moderation towards the Dissenters, yet I believe he never called him a great and good divine; nor do I think he would blame me for what I have said concerning Mr. G——n, and Mr. H——n.
But that which affords you the greatest occasion to denominate me a censorious, uncharitable, and slanderous man, and which I apprehend chiefly stirs up your resentment against me is, to make use of your own expression, page 9. “My reproachful reflections upon the Society which is immediately under our care.” I think the reflections are these: “And as far as I could gather from some who well knew the state of it, [the College] not far superior to our Universities in piety and true godliness. Tutors neglect to pray with, and examine the hearts of the pupils; discipline is at too low an ebb; bad books are become fashionable among them; Tillotson and Clarke are read, instead of Shepard, Stoddard, and such like evangelical writers.” And, Gentlemen, were not these things so at the time when I wrote? Wherein then, in writing thus, have I slandered Harvard College? But then you say, page 10, he goes further still, when he says, page 96, both of Yale College, as well as ours: “As for the Universities, I believe it may be said, Their light is now become darkness, darkness that may be felt.” And must it not be so, when tutors neglect to pray with, and examine the hearts of the pupils, &c. And this is all I meant. For I had no idea of representing the Colleges in such a deplorable state of immorality and irreligion, as you, Gentlemen, in your testimony, seem to object. I meant no more, than what the Reverend President meant, when speaking of the degeneracy of the times, in his sermon at the annual convention of ministers, May 28, 1741, he adds, “But, alas! how is the gold become dim, and the most fine gold changed! We have lost our first love: and though religion is still in fashion with us, yet it is evident, that the power of it is greatly decayed.” However, I am sorry, I published my private informations, though from credible persons, concerning the colleges, to the world: and assure you, that I should be glad to find, the Reverend President was not mistaken when he undertook, from his own examination of things, seven months after, to “assure that venerable audience on the day of the convention, that their society hath not deserved the aspersions which have of late been made upon it, either as to the principles there prevalent, or the books there read:” and assure you further, that what he adds is true in respect of me, “That such as have given out a disadvantageous report of us, have done it in a godly jealousy for the churches of Christ, which are supplied from us.” I would bless God, and at the same time, I would ask pardon for the mistake, if I was mistaken therein; for I unfeignedly wish your prosperity, and therefore was as willing to publish the reformation in the College, as ever I was to speak of its declension. From thence may there always proceed those streams, which may make glad the city of our God!
To proceed: again you say, page 11. “We think it highly proper to bear our testimony against Mr. Whitefield, as we look upon him to be a deluder of the people. And here we mean more especially, as to the collections of money, which, when here before, by an extraordinary mendicant faculty, he almost extorted from the people.” Extorted from the people? How, Gentlemen, could that be, when it was a public contribution? I never heard the people themselves make any such objection. Nor did I ever see people, in all appearance, offer more willingly: they seemed to be those chearful givers, whom God declares he approves of. You go on to prove me a deluder thus: “As the argument he then used was, ‘The support and education of his dear lambs at the Orphan-house,’ who (he told us, he hoped) might, in time, preach the gospel to us and to our children; so it is not to be doubted, that the people were greatly encouraged to give him largely of their substance, supposing they were to be under the immediate tuition and instruction of himself, as he then made them to believe; and had not this been their thought, it is, to us, without all peradventure, they would never have been persuaded to any considerable contribution upon that head; and this notwithstanding, he hath scarce seen them for these four years.” But how does all this prove me a deluder of the people? For can it be proved, that what was collected, was not made use of for the support and education of the dear lambs at the Orphan-house? Or did I promise that any of these dear lambs should come in four years time to preach in New-England? Or did I in the least intimate that I had a design to be always resident at the Orphan-house? And if by various and unexpected interpositions of Providence, I have been prevented seeing them these four years, can I help that? “And besides, you say, he hath left the care of them with a person, whom the contributors know nothing of.” I suppose, Gentlemen, you mean Mr. Barber. But do these contributors know nothing of him? Did I not mention him publicly at the time of collecting, as one of their own countrymen, and one bred up in one of their own colleges? Was he not with me in person? And did I not again and again declare, that he was to be intrusted with the education and spiritual concerns of the children and family? Assuredly I did. But you add, “And we ourselves have reason to believe that he is little better than a Quaker.” What reason, Gentlemen, you may have thus to judge of him, I cannot tell, but I have great reason to believe he is a thorough Calvinist, and a dear man of God, much acquainted with the divine life, and sweetly taught rightly to divide the word of truth. I heartily wish all that had the care of youth, were like-minded, whatever name you are pleased to give him. But you say, “Furthermore, the account which Mr. W—— hath given the world of his disbursements of the several contributions, for the use of his Orphan-house, (wherein there are several large articles, and some of about a thousand pounds our currency charged in a very summary way, ‘For sundries,’ no mention being made therein what the sum was expended for, nor to whom it was paid) is by no means satisfactory.” Would you not, Gentlemen, have done well to have said, by no means satisfactory to us? For, I am well persuaded most of the contributors depended on my veracity, and would have been satisfied as to themselves, though I had given no account of the disbursements at all. Besides, Gentlemen, did you ever see an account of that nature more particular? Is that of the Society for propagating the gospel more so? Or would you yourselves, Gentlemen, be more particular, supposing an account of what has been received and disbursed for Harvard-College, should ever be required at your hands?
The manner of my preaching you seem, page 12. “as much to dislike, and bound to bear a testimony against, as the man himself.” And why? because it is extempore preaching. This, to use your own words, page ibid., “We think by no means proper; for that it is impossible that any man should be able to manage any argument with that strength, or any instruction with that clearness in an extempore manner, as he may with study and meditation.” But, Gentlemen, does extempore preaching exclude study and meditation? Timothy, I believe, was an extempore preacher, and yet the Apostle advises him to give himself to reading: and I am of Luther’s opinion, that study, prayer, meditation, and temptation, are necessary for a minister of Christ. Now you say, “Mr. W—— evidently shows, that he would have us believe his discourses are extempore.” And so they are, if you mean that they are not written down, and that I preach without notes: but they are not extempore, if you think that I preach always without study and meditation. Indeed, Gentlemen, I love to study, and delight to meditate, when I have opportunity, and yet would go into the pulpit by no means depending on my study and meditation, but on the blessed Spirit of God, who I believe now, as well as formerly, frequently gives his ministers utterance, and enables them to preach with such wisdom, that all their adversaries are not able to gainsay or resist. This, I think, is so far from being a lazy manner of preaching, and the preacher in doing thus, is so far from offering that which cost him nothing, as you object, page ibid. that I have generally observed, extempore preachers are the most fervent, laborious preachers, and I believe (at least I speak for myself who have tried both ways) that it costs them as much, if not more close and solemn thought, as well as faith and confidence in God, as preaching by notes. And however you are pleased to add, page ibid. that this way of preaching “is little instructive to the mind, still less cogent to the reasonable powers,” yet, I believe it is the preaching which God hath much honoured, and has been frequently attended with very great success in many ages of the christian church. And if we may pray, I see no reason why we may not preach extempore. The rashness of some of my expressions, as well as the dangerous errors, which you are pleased to say, page 13, have been vented in my extempore discourses, I humbly apprehend, are no sufficient objections against extempore preaching itself; because we often see, that those who preach by notes, and write too, as may be supposed, with study and meditation, are guilty of as rash expressions, and vent as dangerous errors, as those who, you say, preach either without study or meditation. What the dangerous errors are, that have been vented in my extempore discourses, you have not thought proper to specify, unless it be that once or twice through mistake I said, “That Christ loves unregenerate sinners with a love of complacency; nay, and that God loves sinners as sinners.” These were indeed unguarded expressions; but I recalled it publicly as soon as I was made sensible of my mistake: and I think too before your testimony against me was published. Were these my settled principles, I would agree with you in your enlargement upon it, page 13, “Which, if it be not an unguarded expression, must be a thousand times worse; for we cannot look upon it as much less than blasphemy, and shows him to be stronger in the Antinomian scheme, than most of the professors of that heresy themselves.” But as it was only a lapsus linguæ, and the whole current of my preaching and writing was, and is directly contrary to such principles, I would not have you, Gentlemen, by thus representing me as an Antinomian, enroll yourselves in the number of those “that make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for them that speak in the gate.” Indeed, Gentlemen, I utterly detest Antinomianism, both in principle and practice. And though you are pleased to say, “That it is not unlikely, and that it is to be suspected, (that I am an Antinomian) because the expression was repeated; and when he was taxed with it by a certain gentleman, he made no retraction:” yet I did, ♦I thought, what amounted to it: for when he told me of my mistake, (if we understand the same gentleman) I bowed and thanked him for his kind information: as I would willingly do all, who at any time are so kind as to come in the spirit of meekness, to tell me of my faults, and freely converse with me face to face.
Lastly, you are pleased to say, page ibid. “We think it our duty to bear our strongest testimony against that itinerant way of preaching, which this Gentleman was the first promoter of among us, and still delights to continue in.” Now by an itinerant preacher (you say) “We understand one that hath no peculiar charge of his own, but goes about from country to country, or from town to town, in any country, and stands ready to preach to any congregation that shall call him to it: and such a one is Mr. W——.” I own the charge; and am willing to put the case on the same issue as you do, page 14: “Indeed if there were any thing leading to this manner of management, in the directions and instructions given either by our Saviour or his Apostles, we ought to be silent, and so would a man of any modesty; if (on the other hand) there be nothing in the New-Testament leading to it. And surely (you add) Mr. W—— will not have the face to pretend he acts now as an evangelist.” But indeed, Gentlemen, I do, if by an evangelist you mean, what the scripture I presume means, “One who hath no particular charge of his own, but goes about from country to country, or from town to town, in any country, and stands ready to preach to any congregation that shall call him to it.” For does not that general commission given by our Lord to his Apostles, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature,” authorize the ministers of Christ, “even to the end of the world,” to preach the gospel in any town and country, though not of their own head, yet whenever or wherever Providence should open a door, even though it should be in a place “where officers are already settled, and the gospel is fully and faithfully preached.” This, I humbly apprehend, is every gospel minister’s indisputable privilege, and therefore cannot judge that it is being wise above what is written, to give it as my opinion, as you say I have done, page 14. “That itinerant preaching may be very convenient for the furtherance of the good of the churches, if it were under a good regulation.” For itinerant preaching is certainly founded upon the word of God, and has been agreeably approved of, and practised by many good men, with great and happy success both in ancient and later times? Was not the reformation begun and carried on by itinerant preaching? Were not Knox, Welch, Wishart, and those holy men of God, several of the good old puritans, itinerant preachers? Are not itinerants sent forth by the societies for propagating the gospel and promoting christian knowledge both in England, Scotland and Denmark? And did not holy Mr. Baxter in his appendix to his Gildas Salvianus or Reformed Pastor, in conjunction with others, earnestly and with weighty reasons recommend itinerant preaching, even where the gospel was fully and faithfully preached, in 1657? Which is expressed in the following terms:
“To the Reverend and faithful Ministers of Christ in the several Counties of this Land, and the Gentlemen and other natives of each County, now inhabiting the City of London.
“Reverend and beloved Brethren,
THE whole design and business of this discourse, being the propagation of the gospel, and the saving of men’s souls, I have thought it not unmeet to acquaint you with another work to that end, which we have set on foot in this county, and to propound it to your consideration, and humbly invite you to an universal imitation. You know, I doubt not, the great inequality in ministerial abilities, and that many places have ministers that are not qualified with convincing, lively, awakening gifts: some must be tolerated in the necessity of the church, that are not likely to do any great matters towards the conversion of ignorant, sensual, worldly men: and some that are learned, able men, and fitted for controversies, may yet be unfit to deal with those of the lower sort. I suppose if you peruse the whole ministry of a county, you will not find so many and such lively, convincing preachers as we could wish. And I take it for granted, that you are sensible of the weight of eternal things, and of the worth of souls; and that you will judge it a very desirable thing that every man should be employed according to his gifts, and the gospel in its light and power should be made as common, as possible we can: upon these and many the like considerations, the ministers in this county resolved to chuse out four of the most lively, yet sober, peaceable, orthodox men, and desire them once a month to leave their own congregations, to the assistance of some other, and to bestow their labour in the places where they thought there was most need; and as we were resolving upon this work, the natives of this county, inhabiting the city of London, having a custom of feasting together once a year, and having at their feast collected some monies by contribution, for the maintaining of a weekly lecture in this county, (besides other good works) did (by their stewards) desire us to set up the said lecture, and to dispose of the said monies in order thereto: and their judgments upon consultation did correspond with our design. So that the said money, being sufficient to satisfy another, that shall in their absence preach in their own places, we employ it accordingly, and have prevailed with some brethren to undertake this work.
I propound to your consideration, Reverend Brethren, and to you, the natives of each county, in London, whether the same work may not tend much to the edification of the church, and the welfare of souls, if you will be pleased speedily and effectually to set it on foot through the land? Whether it may not, by God’s blessing, be a likely means to illuminate the ignorant, and awaken the secure, and countermine seducers, and hinder the ill success of Satan’s itinerants, and win over many souls to Christ, and stablish many weak ones in the faith? And not doubting but your judgments will approve of the design, I humbly move, that you will please to contribute your faculties to the work; that the Londoners of each county will be pleased to manifest their benevolence to this end, and commit the monies to the hands of the most faithful, orthodox ministers, and that they will readily and self-denyingly undertake the work.
I hope the Gentlemen, natives of this county, will be pleased to pardon my publishing their example, seeing my end is only the promoting of men’s salvation, and the common good.
And that you may more fully understand the scope of our design, I shall annex the letters directed to the several ministers of the county, which the lecturers send to the ministers of the place, and receive his answer, before they presume to preach in any congregation.”
“To all the rest of the Ministers of the Gospel in this County, our Reverend and beloved Brethren, grace and peace in our Lord Jesus Christ.
“Reverend Brethren,
THE communication of the heavenly evangelical light, for the glory of our Redeemer, in the conversion, edification and salvation of men’s souls, is that which we are bound to by many obligations, as christians, and as ministers of Christ, for his church, and therefore must needs be solicitous thereof: and it is that which the spirit of grace, where it abideth, doth proportionably dispose the heart to desire: by convictions of the excellency and necessity of this work, and of our own duty in order thereto, and by the excitation of undeserved grace, our hearts are carried out to long after a more general and effectual illumination and saving conversion of the inhabitants of this county in which we live: which while we were but entering upon a consultation to promote, it pleased God (without our knowledge of it) to put the same thoughts into the hearts of others. The natives of this County of Worcester who dwell in London, meeting at a feast, (as is their yearly use) collected a sum of money for the setting of eight poor boys to trades, and towards the maintaining of a weekly lecture, and have committed the execution of this last, to our care: and upon consultation with their stewards, and among ourselves, both they and we are satisfied, that a moveable lecture on the Lord’s-day is the likeliest way for the improvement of their charity, to the attainment of their ends. For, 1st, many people through poverty cannot, and many through negligence will not come to a week day’s lecture: experience telleth us, that such are usually attended but little by those that have the greatest need: 2dly, and thus the benefit may extend to more, than if it were fixed in one place.
We have therefore desired our reverend and dear brethren, Mr. Andrew Tristram, minister at Clent, Mr. Henry Oasland, minister at Bewdley, and Mr. Thomas Baldwin, minister at Wolverly, and Mr. Joseph Treble, minister at Church Lench, to undertake this work, and that each of them will be pleased every fourth Lord’s-day to preach twice in those places, where they shall judge their labours to be most necessary: and as we doubt not but their own congregations will so far consent for the good of others; so do we hereby request of you our brethren, that when any of them shall offer their labours for your congregations, in preaching the said lecture, you will receive them, and to your power further them in the work. For as we have no thoughts of obtruding their help upon you, without your consent, so we cannot but undoubtedly expect, that men fearing God, and desiring their people’s everlasting good, will chearfully and gratefully entertain such assistance. And we hope, that none will think it needless, or take it as an accusing the ministry of insufficiency: for the Lord doth variously bestow his gifts: all that are upright are not equally fitted for the work: and many that are learned, judicious, and more able to teach the riper sort, are yet less able to condescend to the ignorant, and so convincingly and fervently to rouze up the secure, as some that are below them in other qualifications: and many that are able in both respects, have a barren people; and the ablest have found by experience that God hath sometimes blest the labours of a stranger to do that, which their own hath not done. We beseech you therefore interpret not this as an accusation of any, which proceedeth from the charity of our worthy country-men in London, and from the earnest desires of them and us, to further the salvation of as many as we can. And that you may have no jealousies of the persons deputed to this work; we assure you that they are approved men, orthodox, sober, peaceable, and of upright lives, happily qualified for their ministerial work, and zealous and industrious therein; and so far from being likely to sow any errors or cause divisions, or to draw the hearts of people from their own faithful Pastors, that they will be forward to assist you against any such distempers in your flocks. Not doubting therefore, but as you serve the same Master, and are under the same obligations as we, so as many as are heartily addicted to his service, will readily promote so hopeful a work, we commend you and your labours to the blessing of the Lord.
Your brethren and fellow-labourers in the work of the gospel.
Kiderminster.
In the name and at the desire of the ministers of this association.
Evesham.
Richard Baxter, John Boraston, Jarvis Bryant.
In the name of the ministers of this association.
Giles Collier, George Hopkins, John Dolphin.”
This is and shall be my endeavour, and was so when I was here last, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, notwithstanding some of my expressions have been made to speak things, and convey ideas which I never intended. And therefore, Gentlemen, judge ye, whether you have said right in page 11th, “And now is it possible, that we should not look upon him (Mr. W.) as the blameable cause of all the quarrels on the account of religion, which the churches are now engaged in: and this not only on account of his own behaviour, but also as the coming of those hot men afterwards (who together with the exhorters that accompanied them, cultivated the same uncharitable dispositions in our churches) was wholly owing to his influence and example?” Is this, Gentlemen, a fair way of arguing? Is it not enough for me to answer for myself, without having the faults of others that came after me, laid to my charge also? Did not the papists as justly, who charged Luther with all the imprudencies of his adherents, and the confusions that attended the reformation? Besides, I do not understand, who you mean by those hot men. Surely you do not include the reverend Mr. Tennent. God did make me an instrument of sending him to New-England. I thank him for it, as I believe several of Harvard College, many ministers, and thousands of the common people, in the several parts of New-England, will be found to do, through the ages of eternity. As for others, I knew nothing of their coming, neither do I well know who you mean, and consequently can be no more justly charged with their misconduct, than the first founder of Harvard College can be charged with all the bad principles and practices which any of the members of that society have been guilty of, since his decease. That Mr. Tennent’s labours and mine were remarkably blessed, the reverend Mr. President himself testified in the fore-mentioned sermon, page 23, wherein are these words: “Indeed those two pious and valuable men of God, who have been lately labouring more abundantly among us, have been greatly instrumental in the hands of God, to revive this blessed work; and many, no doubt, have been savingly converted from the error of their ways, many more have been convicted, and all have been in some measure roused from their lethargy.” And even in this testimony, you are all pleased to say, page 3, that “by a certain faculty which he hath of raising the passions, he hath been a means of rousing many from their stupidity, and setting them on thinking, whereby some may have been made really better.” And if these things are so; if many have been roused from their stupidity, and made really better; if the blessed work of God was revived, and there is no doubt but many have been savingly converted from the error of their ways, many more convicted, and all in some measure roused from their lethargy; is it to be wondered at, that many of the people should be strongly attached to such an instrument, though it should be most evident (as you say, page ibid.) “that he hath not any superior talent at instructing the mind, or shewing the force and energy of those arguments for a religious life, which are directed to in the everlasting gospel?” For, is it not natural for people to love their spiritual Father? Would not the Galatians have plucked out even their own eyes, and have given them to Paul? And is it not the bounden duty of all that love Jesus, to love those who labour in the word and doctrine, and are made greatly instrumental in the hands of God to revive his blessed work amongst them? And supposing that they have not any superior talent at instructing the mind, &c. ought they not the more to thank and adore the sovereignty of their heavenly father, who sends by whom he will send, and chuses the weak things of this world to confound the strong, and hides those things from the wise and prudent, which he is pleased to reveal unto babes?
Gentlemen, I profess myself a Calvinist as to principle, and preach no other doctrines than those which your pious ancestors, and the founders of Harvard College, preached long before I was born. And I am come to New-England, with no intention to meddle with, much less to destroy the order of the New-England churches, or turn out the generality of their ministers, or re-settle them with ministers from England, Scotland, and Ireland, as hath been hinted in a late letter written by the reverend Mr. Clap, Rector of Yale-College: such a thought never entered my heart; neither, as I know of, has my preaching the least tendency thereunto. I am determined to know nothing among you, but Jesus Christ and him crucified. I have no intention of setting up a party for myself, or to stir up people against their Pastors. Had not illness prevented, I had some weeks ago departed out of these coasts. But as it is not a season of the year for me to undertake a very long journey, and I have reason to think the great God daily blesses my poor labours, I think it my duty to comply with the invitations that are sent me; and, as I am enabled, to be instant in season and out of season, and to preach among poor sinners the unsearchable riches of Jesus Christ. This indeed I delight in. It is my meat and my drink. I esteem it more than my necessary food. This I think I may do, as a minister of the King of kings, and a subject to his present Majesty King George, upon whose royal head I pray God, the crown may long flourish. And as I have a right to preach, so I humbly apprehend the people, as christians, as men, and New-England men in particular, have a right to invite and hear. If pulpits should be shut, blessed be God! the fields are open, and I can go without the camp, bearing the Redeemer’s sacred reproach: this I am used to, and glory in; believing that if I suffer for it, I shall suffer for righteousness sake. At the same time I desire to be humbled, and ask public pardon for any rash word I have dropped, or any thing I have written or done amiss. This leads me also to ask forgiveness, Gentlemen, if I have done you or your society, in my journal, any wrong. Be pleased to accept unfeigned thanks for all tokens of respect you shewed me when here last. And if you have injured me in the testimony you have published against me and my conduct (as I think, to say no more, you really have) it is already forgiven without asking, by Gentlemen,
Your affectionate humble servant,
G. W.
P. S. I have been obliged to be very brief, on account of the variety of business in which I am necessarily engaged, and my daily calls to preach the everlasting gospel.